UB Dan wrote:

"--where did I ever say anyone full of hate must be gay? I am speculating that Clinton Hammond is full of hatred towards gays ("faggots" to use his favorite term) because he himself may harbor feelinsg of latent homosexuality that frighten or repulse him. That is all. "

(UB Dan):What I'm saying is if you perceive someone to be a jerk...maybe its just because they are a jerk and has nothing to do with sexuality. Judging someones sexuality based on non-sexual actions is the same as pre-judging how sopmeone will act based on knowing their sexuality. This is the definition of prejudice.

"--I have no problem with the word "gay" which is, I feel, usually a positive term. Referring to someone in a vindictive way as a "faggot" as Clinton has done in this forum on many occasions is NOT positive; but of course he tries to say, hey, it's okay, that's THEIR word that THEY use with EACH OTHER. That's like saying it is okay for a whitey like Clinton to use the "N" word when referring to a black person because some blacks use that word in their community...this is really arrogant (and ignorant at the same time)."

(UB Dan):I wasn't insuinuating that the word was bad...I was saying the way it was being used was as an insult...like saying if Clinton could dance he must be African American...nothing wrong with the term but the use of it is very wrong.

"In essence you have become what you are attacking.

--a homophobe? Not me.

(UB Dan):I don't know Clinton well enough to swear that he is not a homophobe...but I can't swear he is. What you are upset at him for is perceived broad sweeping generalizations. And you have become what you attack.

"Your generalization is neither more fair nor less offensive just be cause you are gay... "
"--I'm not gay; I am just not a bigot."

Sorry for the misunderstanding, I was actually posting at the same time as you...the post was a response to Kat

"maybe some of Clinton's best friends are gay, then his comment is no longer offensive...."

"--but people whose "best friends are gay" don't refer to people like Ashley MacIsaac as "faggot" and "pedophile" and say "he pees on little boys" etc.--my best friends ARE gay so allow me to know what I'm talking about."

(UB Dan):I can understand your objection to the word "faggot", but how can being upset at someone who is a pedophile be derogatory to all gays...these are two different things. If however, you are saying Ashley is not a pedophile, than say so.

"Kat, my stronger objection is to Peg's response that says since Clinton called somebody a sissy he is condoning the brutal slaughter of a human and in addition UB Dan is an asshole (?)"
"--gee, now you're really making sense..."

(UB Dan): I'm not sure which part of this you are denying having said...

"My reference to Matthew Shepard was pretty clear; it is homophobia and hatred towards gays that allows such behavior (gay bashing which tunrs into vioent attack and in this case, murder) to be sanctioned and glorified.

I try to be careful in the way I use language. I realize I can't expect that from everyone. But is it too much to ask that you at least read more carefully?"

(UB Dan): Reading...re-reading...seeing nothing different...wait....reading again....nope.

"BTW, still waiting for that quotation wherein I called you an asshole for disagreeing with you about Kyoto..."

(UB Dan):I had assumed that you would have some reason for calling me an asshole...that is the only topic in which you and I have ever met (as far as I know). I didn't realize that it was just a random insult at a random person...you're right...the randomness of it does make it morally superior to an attack on a specific person for a specific action (i.e. Clinton insulting Ashley). Although, I guess it was a typo and it was actually Ed that you intended to call an asshole...because....well, I guess it is still pretty random...